Download Regional GDP Compilation: Production, Income and Expenditure

ANALYSES
Regional GDP Compilation:
Production, Income
1
and Expenditure Approach
Jaroslav Kahoun2 | Czech Statistical Office, Prague, Czech Republic
Jaroslav Sixta3 | University of Economics in Prague, Czech Republic
Abstract
Regional gross domestic product (GDP) per capita is one of the key indicators describing the level of regional
economic disparities in individual countries. Besides it is used for international comparison as indicator for
distribution of structural funds in the European Union. The aim of this article is to analyse possible methods
of regional allocation of GDP on the basis of existing rules within the EU and in the Czech Republic. The scale
of rules allows application of different methods and offers more varieties of conceptual approaches to regional
allocation of GDP. First of all either income or production method is used exclusively for each industry in different countries differently, depending on data availability. Subsequently, possibility of expenditure approach
is added. In cases of all methods there exist weaknesses, e.g. regional distribution of revenues or operating
surpluses in cases of multi-regional companies and different methods of allocation mean a distinct regional
view of overall economic performance.
Keywords
JEL code
Regional accounts, regional GDP, gross value added
E01, R11, R12
INTRODUCTION
Regional gross domestic product per capita is the most commonly used indicator for the comparison of
regional disparities in economic performance. Analysis of regional disparities with particular emphasis
on the specifics in differences between GDP and disposable income of households and their evaluation
of development in time were made in some earlier studies (see e.g. Kahoun, 2010 or Chlad, Kahoun,
2011). Presented paper is aimed more at methodological issues in definition of regional GDP rather than
comparing it with other indicators or its limited representativeness. It is aimed mainly at the methods of
calculation of regional GDP, existing and conceptual approaches to regional GDP based on regional accounts experience in the Czech Republic and the applicable rules within the EU. The starting point for this
study is the assumption that the methods of regional allocation of GDP have more varieties of conceptual
1
This paper is prepared under the support of the project “Regional estimates of gross domestic product based on the
expenditure approach” of the Czech Science Foundation, project No 13-15771S.
2
Czech Statistical Office, Na padesátém 81, 100 82 Prague 10, Czech Republic. E-mail: [email protected].
3
University of Economics, Nám. W. Churchilla 4, 130 67 Prague, Czech Republic. Author is also working at the Czech
Statistical Office. E-mail: [email protected].
24
STATISTIKA
2013
93 (4)
approaches (mainly in regionalization of income and production items of gross value added) that can be
used in different countries differently but can also in the same country offer a distinct regional view of
overall economic performance. In the first two parts the general procedures used in the compilation of
regional GDP and other indicators of regional accounts are briefly described together with description
of current methodology of GVA allocation in the Czech Republic. There are definitions of individual
methods used to regionalization of GVA: bottom-up, pseudo-bottom-up, top-down and mixed method.
Main part of the article is aimed at analysis of income approach of regional allocation of GVA and at
conceptual problems in regional allocation of operating surpluses in cases of multi-regional companies.
Experimental regional calculation of all items of income approach for the Czech Republic is then presented in this article together with analysis of regional importance of operating surplus, compensation of
employees and consumption of fixed capital. It is supplemented in final part of the article by description
of possible regional allocation of GDP by expenditure method (mainly household final consumption).
1 GENERAL RULES FOR ALLOCATION OF REGIONAL GDP
For the calculation of macroeconomic indicators at the regional level there are not sufficient data for
institutional units (legal entities), which are normally used in the compilation of national accounts. The
information for individual local units is needed (respectively for separate units of enterprises). Since the
data for local units are often not available, the statistics of regional accounts use some specific approaches
for regional allocation of GDP (see Chlad, 2008). Methods of regionalization of national accounts indicators which are allowed in standard ESA 1995 (European System of Accounts) are the following:
l
bottom-up method – is based on the necessary information about local units which are resident
in the region (e.g. indicators of output and intermediate consumption for the calculation of
GVA), the calculation procedure then follows the procedure used in the national accounts;
l
top-down method – is based on the aggregates of national accounts data that are divided via the
keys which are closely related to indicators measured (e.g. value added based on the structure
of compensation of employees);
l
pseudo-bottom-up method – aggregates are formed as an estimate for the local units from the
institutional unit level or activity unit level (similar to top-down method but applied from the
lowest level);
l
pseudo-top-down method – the national data is allocated to regions according to the relative
but not too closely related indicators;
l
mixed method – it is a combination of several approaches and is common practice in most of
EU countries.
For estimates of regional gross domestic product there is theoretically possible to apply three basic
approaches as well as at the national level: production approach, income approach and expenditure approach (see ESA 1995).
Production approach measures the regional gross domestic product at market prices as the sum of
gross value added at basic prices and taxes on products without the subsidies. Gross value added at basic prices is calculated as the difference between output at basic prices and intermediate consumption
at purchase prices. Indicators of sales, activation and expenses are in the Czech Republic and very often
also in other countries available only for the institutional units as a whole. On the other hand, almost no
problem means breakdown of intermediate consumption because the costs of each activity and the local
unit are usually well known. Major complication can arise with determination of the value of production of some local units. An important limitation of the multi-regional organizations is the problematic
valuation of output per local unit in a typical case when the administrative unit of the company is located in one region and the entire manufacturing business activity is located in other region (problem
of regional allocation of common sales).
25
ANALYSES
Table 1 Regional GDP compilation by the production approach
Regional GDP
by the production approach
Process of regionalization
Weaknesses
= Regional production
Regional information about sales of
products and services, sales of goods for
resale minus costs of goods sold, changes
in inventory of own production and
production for own final use
The problem is the valuation of
production for the local unit in a multiregional organizations (e.g. corporate
headquarters, local units performing only
administrative activity)
– Regional intermediate consumption
Regional information on material
consumption, energy consumption and
expenses for services incurred in making
production
Usually not
+ Regional net taxes on products (not
available by industries)
The usual procedure is the regionalization
in the proportion of total regional GVA
Usually not
Source: Own construction
Income approach determines the regional gross domestic product at market prices through aggregation of variables in the generation of income account – compensation of employees, gross operating
surplus and taxes on production and imports (without subsidies) in the regional breakdown. Information regarding employment and compensation of employees by industry is often available at regional
level. This information is used for estimation of gross value added by industry either directly by income
method or through the production approach. The information on gross operating surplus (including
mixed income) appears to be the greatest weakness of the regional allocation of GDP by income approach. Gross operating surplus is generally not available broken down by region. Information on gross
operating surplus of market producers can be derived from business surveys but usually it is not done
even at national level in national accounts. Breakdown by institutional sectors and regions is usually not
available in most of countries in the EU. This indicator complicates the use of the income approach for
estimation of the regional gross domestic product.
Taxes on production and imports (excluding subsidies) consist of taxes on products (excluding subsidies) and other taxes on production (excluding subsidies). An allocation of taxes on products (excluding subsidies) is subject to a uniform methodology of the ESA which allows allocation of the regional
structure in proportion of total regional gross value added. For other taxes on production (excluding
the subsidy) data may be theoretically available by industry from business surveys or surveys based on a
kind of tax or subsidy in detailed breakdown. These data may be the key for the allocation into regions
or if not available the allocation can be done in the proportion of total regional GVA.
The expenditure approach is not commonly used for measurement of the regional gross domestic
product in the EU countries due to the lack of information. Example of the lack of direct information is
the intra-regional breakdown of exports and imports and final consumption is also disputable in terms
of availability of regional data. To-date, official statistical authorities in the EU countries refused to do
it with respect to the costs.
Actually, the problem of regional expenditures may be solved even with existing data sources. The
key difficulties lie in the subjective and model based approaches that have to be used. It is very crucially
connected with the responsible and qualified work with a lot of different data sources usually providing
different results.
26
STATISTIKA
2013
93 (4)
Table 2 Regional GDP compilation by the income approach
Regional GDP by the income approach
Process of regionalization
Weaknesses
= Regional compensation of employees paid by
resident local units
Information is typically available in
a breakdown by the local units and
regions
Usually not
+ Regional operating surplus and mixed income,
net
Auxiliary keys for regionalization (in
the structure of related indicators)
Represents the biggest problem of
the income approach – the issue of
recording of operating surpluses in
the headquarters of the companies
/ local units
Information can be theoretically
treated by local units and regions
In many countries there are no data
in the regional breakdown
+ Regional consumption of fixed capital
+ Net taxes on production and imports
(taxes less subsidies)
Information can be theoretically
In most of countries there are no data
treated or allocated in the proportion
in the regional breakdown
of total regional GVA
Source: Own construction
Table 3 Regional GDP compilation by the expenditure approach
Regional GDP by expenditure approach
= Regional final consumption of households
Process of regionalization
Weaknesses
In many countries there are no data
Information from surveys in
in the regional breakdown (the
households, alternatively information
problem of representativeness of the
from administrative sources
samples)
Information from administrative
sources
In many countries there are no data
in the relevant regional division
+ Gross capital formation (investment plus change
in inventories)
The information is usually available
or can be broken down by local units
and regions
Need to estimate regional changes
in inventories
+ Regional net exports
It constitutes the largest problem of
Information on intra-regional imports the expenditure approach – the main
and exports
reason why the EU countries do not
use this approach
+ Regional government expenditure
Source: Own construction
27
ANALYSES
2 CALCULATION OF THE REGIONAL GVA AND GDP4 IN THE CZECH REPUBLIC (PRODUCTION
APPROACH)
Calculation of regional gross value added in the Czech Republic is made on basis of production approach
for sectors of non-financial corporations and enterprises in the sector of households (see Kahoun, 2009).
Regional indicators of output and intermediate consumption are derived from the same data sources used
to calculation at the national level. The calculation is broken down in the details of two-digit NACE level
and a special approach of regionalization is applied to some methodological adjustments of national accounts: imputed rent, consumption of fixed capital in government sector (especially roads, highways, local roads and rail routes) and also for individual household construction and part of the illegal activities.
The prevailing approach for the production method is the pseudo-bottom-up process of regionalization. This procedure is based on estimates of activity data for the local unit by scheduling data for individual companies. This is similar to top-down method but not on the national level but on aggregated
data for a single multi-regional institutional unit. The obtained data are then aggregated to get regional
total sum in the same way as in the classical bottom-up method.
The method of pseudo-bottom-up is used for gross value added of major institutional sectors: nonfinancial enterprises (S.11) and households (S.14). The allocation of regional gross value added for other
organizations (financial institutions, government institutions and non-profit institutions – S.12, S.13
and S.15) is done on basis of wages and salaries broken down by types of survey and required industryregional breakdown. The structure of the wages and salaries is used as the key for top-down method of
regional allocation of the remaining recorded gross value added in the national accounts (more specifically the value before methodological and other adjustments made in the final compilation of national
accounts). Net top-down method based only on wages and salaries in this way is applied on 13.3 % of
total national GVA in 2011.
After summarization of all the regional observed values there exists still more than one tenth of the
gross value added from national accounts that remains not distributed. It is a part of the methodological adjustments of national accounts (excluding imputed rent and consumption of fixed capital for the
government sector) and adjustments for exhaustiveness of the economy – includes the deliberate misrepresentation, underground economy, majority of illegal economy, units not subject to identification,
etc. These data are regionally allocated according to the structure of total official regional gross value
added in each sector. These estimates are mostly done at the national level without the possibility of the
currently available and quality regional data. Estimates even at a national level are lacking a high degree
of data accuracy. Ratios of bottom-up, pseudo-bottom-up and top-down methods of regional allocation
of GVA before adjustment to National Accounts values (above mentioned) are presented in Figure 1.
Across industries there are noticeable differences in approaches to regional allocation of GVA (see Figure 1) which is caused by different approaches to the institutional sectors and different shares of institutional
sectors in each industry (top-down method is used for government, financial institutions and non-profit
institutions sectors and bottom-up is used for sectors of non-financial enterprises and households). While
in the manufacturing, mining or energy industry almost exclusively bottom-up method is used (as well as
in trade and construction), in industry of public administration and industry of financial intermediation
almost exclusively top-down method is used. In total for the reference year 2006, around 49 per cent of GVA
was regionalised by pure bottom-up method, almost 22 per cent by pure pseudo-bottom-up method, 9 per
cent of total GVA falls on industry structure (grossing-up to National Accounts, ideal brake-force distribution for each region) and 21 per cent of total GVA (the rest) was estimated according to top-down methods.
4
Regional structures of GDP and GVA are the same. The difference between GDP and GVA (i.e. net taxes and subsidies on
products) is allocated proportionally to the total GVA. Therefore, this chapter deals only with compilation of regional GVA.
28
STATISTIKA
2013
93 (4)
Figure 1 Regionalisation methods of GVA according to industries in % (NACE Rev. 1)
Agriculture
Fishing
Mining and quarrying
Manufacturing
Elektricity
Construction
Trade, reparation etc
Hotels and rest
Transport, storage
Finacial intermediation
Real estate
Public administration
Education
social work
Other services
Activities of households
TOTAL
0%
20%
Mono-regional = bottom-up
40%
60%
Multi-regional = pseudo-bottom-up
80%
100%
Top-down
Note: Percentage shows ratios of methods of regionalisation on total values of GVA before methodological adjustments and adjustments
to National Accounts values.
Source: Czech Statistical Office, Regional GVA Inventory 2009 <http://apl.czso.cz/pll/rocenka/rocenka.indexnu_reg>
5
3 REGIONAL GVA AND GDP BY INCOME APPROACH
As it was already mentioned above, the calculation of regional GVA in the Czech Republic is carried out
in the prevailing production method. The regional GVA of local units of multi-regional organizations (the
organizations with activity in multiple regions) is based on the structure of the total wages and salaries
paid by these organizations in various regions. The production method of calculation is therefore influenced by a key indicator of income method, i.e. compensation of employees. This mix of approaches is
relatively consistent because compensation of employees constitutes the largest share of gross value added
and they are easily detectable by the regions while the best quality identifiable data from Structural Business Survey are indicators characterizing the production method, respectively production and intermediate consumption (but not for local units). In regional accounts it is therefore necessary to find the key for
the allocation of GVA for multi-regional organizations – those are the structures of wages and salaries.
An alternative approach would be to calculate the regional gross value added directly by the income
approach but excluding compensation of employees it would be necessary to work with information
about regional consumption of fixed capital and especially with regional operating surplus which is another important pillar of the income measurement of gross value added.
The following experimental calculation of income components of regional gross value added is made
on the example of data from regional accounts of the Czech Republic for the year 2011. Assuming that
the balance of production and income approaches must be balanced, the operating surplus and mixed
5
Regional structures of GDP and GVA are the same. Therefore, this chapter deals only with compilation of regional GVA.
29
ANALYSES
income is equal to the difference between the total GVA established by production method and the remaining components of the income approach (compensation of employees, consumption of fixed capital and
net other taxes on production and imports).
Formula for regional calculation of operating surplus and mixed income:
B.2n + B.3n = B.1g – D.1 – K.1 – (D.29 – D.39),
where:
B.2n + B.3n – regional net operating surplus and mixed income,
B.1g – regional gross value added established by production method,
D.1 – compensation of employees paid by regional resident local units,
K.1 – regional consumption of fixed capital,
D.29 – D.39 – regional net other taxes on production and imports (taxes less subsidies).
While the regional gross added value is known from regional accounts as well as compensation of
employees (their regional structures make part of the obligatory data in EUROSTAT transmission programme from EU member states), there is necessary to estimate regional consumption of fixed capital
and regional net taxes on production and imports.
Consumption of fixed capital (CFC) based on local units (or in regional breakdown) is not directly
measured in the Czech Republic and its regional values are practically not available with current data
sources. Because of these reasons it is necessary to find the appropriate key for the regional distribution
of national values by top-down method (for details of methodology of CFC calculation at national level
see Sixta, 2007). The traditional available statistical indicator of regional accounts is gross fixed capital
formation (GFCF) – for its regionalization Czech statistics uses traditional data on regional acquisitions
of tangible and intangible assets in structural business survey.
In the years 2002–2004 also a specific section on total fixed assets by region existed in the structural
business survey. Fixed assets data from 2004 and their regular update on newly acquired assets and depreciation of assets until 2011 can therefore serve as the basis for the experimental calculation in this
article (depreciated can be only these assets that were acquired in the past and the regional structure
of total fixed assets should be very close to the regional structure of the estimated indicator). Resulted
values of regional fixed assets in 2011 are therefore used as weights for the regional distribution of consumption of fixed capital from national accounts for 2011. Moreover, there was made the comparison of
the regional structure of total fixed assets based on methods mentioned above with the total cumulative
regional values of investments from 1993 to 2008 for which data are available in surveys (it was based on
the assumption that the regional structure of consumption of fixed capital is very close to the regional
structures of historical accumulated values of assets acquired or sum of GFCF) and the results indicated
very similar regional structures in case of both aggregates.
Special approach is applied on CFC for dwellings where the key for distribution is estimated from the
value of dwellings as a result of regional price per m2 multiplied by regional area of flats in 2001 Census with updating of data on new housing construction and depreciation until 2011. Special approach
is applied also on CFC for roads, highways, local roads and railways based on length of different types
of routes in the regions.
Another relatively small item that has to be estimated by top-down method is net other taxes on production that are directly part of GVA (D.29 – D.39). In this case we can choose an equivalent procedure
that is recommended by EUROSTAT for the production method in case of net taxes on products (D.21
– D.31). This recommendation allows the regional allocation of net taxes on products in the structure of
the total gross value added in the regions (the shares of regional gross value added on the total national
values). This procedure is allowed due to the fact that in the most countries regional data on taxes on
30
STATISTIKA
2013
93 (4)
products is usually not available and in the case of taxes on production and imports it is usually the same
in most countries (as well as in the Czech Republic). However, regional allocation of net other taxes on
production is done for each sector separately and, therefore, the resulting regional structure offers a different view in comparison with total GVA (due to the importance of subsidies in each sector – the largest part of subsidies is concentrated in the agricultural sector what significantly reduce the share of the
capital of Prague in comparison with other regions).
The remaining value to a total gross value added is net operating surplus (including mixed income).
Table 4 shows the absolute amount of individual income components of gross value added in the regions
NUTS 3 in the Czech Republic based on above mentioned experimental methodology (the regional
structure in percentage is then showed in Table 5 in Chapter 3.1).
Table 4 T he estimated values of the income components of the regional gross value added in million CZK, year
2011
Regions of the Czech
Republic, year 2011
Česká republika
Compensation of
employees D.1
Consumption of
fixed capital K.1
Net other taxes
D.29 – D.39
GVA B.1g
Net operating
surplus B.2n
1 625 776
731 127
–30 244
3 444 465
1 117 806
Hlavní město Praha
421 870
165 884
–2 834
856 706
271 786
Středočeský kraj
157 563
85 768
-4 393
373 662
134 724
Jihočeský kraj
82 794
44 948
–2 434
175 632
50 324
Plzeňský kraj
81 954
37 661
–2 015
168 107
50 507
Karlovarský kraj
34 165
17 074
–305
71 116
20 182
Ústecký kraj
96 270
49 807
–1 226
216 366
71 515
Liberecký kraj
53 151
23 067
–1 381
110 413
35 576
Královéhradecký kraj
72 428
33 972
–1 926
157 382
52 907
Pardubický kraj
65 456
30 168
–2 109
138 484
44 969
Vysočina
64 718
31 275
–3 337
139 874
47 218
176 462
76 666
–3 653
357 805
108 331
Olomoucký kraj
79 100
35 113
–1 920
162 035
49 742
Zlínský kraj
72 516
30 516
–1 128
163 939
62 035
167 329
69 207
–1 584
352 944
117 991
Jihomoravský kraj
Moravskoslezský kraj
Source: Czech Statistical Office, own calculation (experimental)
Figure 2 shows a structure of gross value added broken down by individual components in ranking
according to the shares of operating surplus on gross value added in 2011. The results logically indicate
relatively higher share of operating surplus in regions with either lower share of compensation of employees or lower share of consumption of fixed capital (Zlínský, Středočeský and Vysočina). Especially
historically lower level of wages and salaries can strengthen the share of operating surplus if region is
economically successful at present. On the other side historically higher level of wages and salaries can
be limitation for operating surplus at present (Praha, Jihomoravský) especially if the region is in phase
of economic downturn (Karlovarský).
31
ANALYSES
Figure 2 Structure of gross value added in regions – items of the income approach in %, year 2011
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
–20%
ZLK
STC
VYS
HKK
Net operating surplus
MSK
ULK
PAK
ČR
LBK
Compens. of employees
PHA
OLK
JHM
Cons. of fixed cap.
PLK
JHC
KVK
Net other taxes
Note: Ranking by the estimated share of the operating surplus on GVA.
Source: Czech Statistical Office, own calculation
Figure 3 shows the regions ranking according to the shares of compensation of employees in the gross
value added and in comparison with the proportion of consumption of fixed capital to gross value added
(second column). These two factors can be considered as labour and capital parts of GVA as they reflect
the influence and involvement of these two factors of productivity in regional GVA (for more about factor productivity at national level, see e. g. Fischer, Sixta, 2009). Ranking of regions in the Figure 3 is, to a
certain extent, reverse to the previous Figure 2 since regions with a high share of operating surplus (sort
criteria in Figure 2) account often for a smaller share of compensation of employees. The importance of
capital over wages can be expected in industrial regions and smaller in regions dominated by services
(Praha). High proportion of consumption of fixed capital is in regions Karlovarský, Ústecký, Jihočeský.
The specifically high level of CFC in the region South Bohemia (Jihočeský) reflects the capital adequacy
in energy industry (Temelin nuclear power plant) and similar effect plays an important role in the region
Vysočina (Dukovany nuclear power plant).
Figure 3 C
omparison of the shares of compensation of employees and consumption of fixed capital on regional GVA
(“labour” and “capital” part of the gross value added), year 2011
50%
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
JHM
PHA
OLK
PLK
LBK
KVK
MSK
Compens. of employees
Note: Ranking by the share of compensation of employees on GVA.
Source: Czech Statistical Office, own calculation
32
PAK
ČR
JHC
VYS
Cons. of fixed capital
HKK
ULK
ZLK
STC
STATISTIKA
2013
93 (4)
3.1 The problem of regional allocation of the operating surplus
In Table 5 in the last column the regional structure of the net operating surplus is indicated as it is based
on the assumption of the balance between income and production method (the result of previous experimental calculation). Production method is, in this case, regarded as decisive for the total amount of
gross value added. Nevertheless, in case of production method it is necessary to take into account the
fact that the calculation of regional gross value added for multi-regional organization by pseudo-bottomup method is based on the regional structures of wages and salaries of individual companies (because of
limited data sources). This means that remaining items of the income calculation of GDP (above mentioned) are theoretically for multi-regional organization also distributed in the structure of wages and
salaries (i.e. including their operating surpluses). This is pretty simplistic and made purely with regard
to the absence of the necessary regional data. Moreover the operating surpluses are expected to be more
important just in cases of multi-regional organizations (electricity companies, banks, telecommunication
operators etc.) and also in technology-intensive regions (see Ženka, Čadil, 2009).
An alternative procedure of calculating of GDP could therefore be the allocation of income components of gross value added separately even with a rough approximation of regional structures of operating surplus, capital consumption and other indicators. The fundamental problem remains in finding a
key for regional allocation of operating surplus. It makes the further progress in this direction difficult
and, therefore, the calculation of regional GDP by income approach in most countries is not realized or
if so, then only in a smaller part of the gross value added.
Table 5 Regional estimated structures of the income components of GDP in % of national GVA, year 2011
Regions of the Czech
Republic, year 2011
Compensation
of employees D.1
Consumption
of fixed capital K.1
Net other taxes
D.29-D.39
GVA B.1g
Net operating
surplus B.2n
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
25.9
22.7
9.4
24.9
24.3
Středočeský kraj
9.7
11.7
14.5
10.8
12.1
Jihočeský kraj
5.1
6.1
8.0
5.1
4.5
Plzeňský kraj
5.0
5.2
6.7
4.9
4.5
Karlovarský kraj
2.1
2.3
1.0
2.1
1.8
Ústecký kraj
5.9
6.8
4.1
6.3
6.4
Liberecký kraj
3.3
3.2
4.6
3.2
3.2
Královéhradecký kraj
4.5
4.6
6.4
4.6
4.7
Pardubický kraj
4.0
4.1
7.0
4.0
4.0
Vysočina
4.0
4.3
11.0
4.1
4.2
10.9
10.5
12.1
10.4
9.7
Olomoucký kraj
4.9
4.8
6.3
4.7
4.4
Zlínský kraj
4.5
4.2
3.7
4.8
5.5
10.3
9.5
5.2
10.2
10.6
Česká republika
Hlavní město Praha
Jihomoravský kraj
Moravskoslezský kraj
Source: Czech Statistical Office, own calculation (experimental)
33
ANALYSES
4 REGIONAL GDP BY EXPENDITURE APPROACH
Regional expenditure approach should be mainly connected with household consumption and gross
fixed capital formation. Government consumption and NPISH consumption expenditures are from the
most important part (non-market output) identical with production approach. The only remaining issue is social benefits in kind covering mainly government expenditures on health and social issues. The
issue of interregional export and import may be set aside. The key advantage of expenditure method is
not computation of GDP but the comparison of domestic final demand with resources (disposable income). Therefore, net export can be obtained as a balancing item between production and expenditure
approach. Comparison of ratios of individual components of expenditure approach on regional GDP
(final consumption of households, final consumption of government as well as net export) can then
provide a completely new and useful view on regional economic disparities and drivers of economic
development in the regions.
In case of GFCF the data are normally available for regions NUTS 3 and NUTS 2 in regional accounts
published by the Czech Statistical Office. As the most important task it is necessary to find the suitable
indicator for regional distribution of household final consumption expenditure (for each group of CZCOICOP based on annual national accounts data). In cases where regional data are not available from
administrative or other data sources, household budget survey can be used as a primary source. "Cash
expenditure per capita" are the part of household budget survey for the Czech Republic published by regions NUTS 2 and the distribution of values from the NUTS 2 to NUTS 3 level can be done e. g. by the
number of inhabitants in NUTS 3 regions. Demographic and other supporting indicators could be also
Table 6 Regional experimental calculation of household final consumption (HFCE) and disposable income of
households (DIH)
Regions of the Czech
Republic, 2009
Regional HFCE per
Regional DIH per capita
capita in % of national
in % of national DIH
HFCE per capita
per capita
Regional structure of
HFCE in %
Regional structure of
DIH in %
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
Hlavní město Praha
15.5
15.2
130.7
128.3
Středočeský kraj
12.5
12.7
106.1
107.7
Jihočeský kraj
5.7
5.8
93.3
96.1
Plzeňský kraj
5.1
5.3
93.5
98.2
Karlovarský kraj
2.6
2.7
89.8
90.5
Ústecký kraj
7.3
7.2
91.0
89.9
Liberecký kraj
3.8
3.9
91.8
93.5
Královéhradecký kraj
5.0
5.2
94.3
98.5
Pardubický kraj
4.6
4.7
93.7
94.9
Kraj Vysočina
4.5
4.7
91.4
94.9
11.2
10.8
102.4
98.5
Olomoucký kraj
5.7
5.6
93.9
92.2
Zlínský kraj
5.4
5.3
95.3
93.8
11.1
10.9
93.1
91.6
Česká republika
Jihomoravský kraj
Moravskoslezský kraj
Source: HFCE – experimental calculation (see Kramulová, Musil, 2013), DIH – official data of Czech Statistical Office
34
STATISTIKA
2013
93 (4)
used in cases where for some groups of CZ-COICOP sufficiently large sample of households do not exist
in household budget survey at regional level. The limited reliability of samples in household budget survey is unfortunately the problem in general and it is the complication for using of expenditure method
not only at regional level. Social benefits in kind can be regionally allocated predominantly according to
the physical or value indicators from the hospitals or value indicators from health insurance companies.
Table 6 shows the comparison of regional household consumption expenditures based on experimental calculation of experts from University of Economics in Prague with regional disposable income.
Comparison of regional disposable income and household consumption in household sector leads to
the description of living conditions of households. This is far away from qualitative indicators given by
e.g. SILC. Analysis of disposable income in relation with consumption should lead to more reliable results.
It also shows the potential of the region from the perspectives of savings. In the experimental calculation
higher share of region on national disposable income than on consumption (it means higher savings) was
reported mostly in the Bohemian regions (Středočeský, Jihočeský, Plzeňský, Královéhradecký, Vysočina)
while in the Moravian regions except Vysočina as well as in region Praha and Ústecký the share of region
on disposable income was lower than on final consumption.
CONCLUSION
The issue of regional allocation of gross value added and GDP has its bottlenecks mainly due to inability to capture all transactions between regions but still existing needs to identify all the characteristics
required for the calculation of GDP whether by production, income or expenditure approach. In all
cases for the calculation of regional GDP there is necessary to implement certain approximations,
simplification and auxiliary keys and in all countries there is a choice of several different processes
which is allowed in accounting standard ESA 1995 (or newly ESA 2010). The usual procedure in the
majority of EU countries (applicable even in the Czech Republic) is the calculation of regional GVA
by production method because the most identifiable data from statistical surveys are indicators characterizing the production method – i.e. the revenue and intermediate consumption for which it is
necessary only to find some regional key for the allocation of data for multi-regional organizations
(usually wages and salaries or number of employees, if the question on the revenues and expenses
is not proceeding directly by the local units). In some countries the income approach is used as a
basic especially where reliable data on the regional capital consumption are available. The example
of experimental calculation of regional gross value added by income approach for the Czech Republic was illustrated in this article. There was indicated not only the regional structure of the income
components of gross value added but also conceptual problems connected with estimation of the
regional operating surplus. The same and even greater problems arise even in the case of application
of expenditure approach how it is described in the final part of the article (especially for indicator of
net export and complicated determination of reliable data source for distribution of household final
consumption). These problems lead to the conclusion that the production method (despite the difficulties associated with the allocation of revenues to local businesses and the units carrying out only
administrative activities of enterprises) is the most feasible procedure for calculation of regional GDP
in the Czech Republic. Production method implemented in the Czech Republic calculates the total
regional gross value added for uni-regional organizations in equivalent procedure as in the national
accounts. This is relatively minor inaccuracy in comparison with the income approach that tackles
with the problems of limited data sources for direct calculation of the regional consumption of fixed
capital and both conceptual and data limitations for the calculation of regional operating surpluses
and even more in comparison with the expenditure approach that tackles with problems related to
limited data sources in its most important item, i.e. final consumption and finally with inability of
direct measurement of net export.
35
ANALYSES
References
BAS DE VET, ALGERA, S., EDING, G. Multi-regional units in the Regional Accounts, Statistics Netherlands and University
of Groningen, 1999.
CZSO. Regional Accounts, database 1995–2011. Prague: Czech Statistical Office, 2013. <http://apl.czso.cz/pll/rocenka/
rocenka.indexnu_reg>.
CZSO. Regional GVA Inventory (in English): Methodological description of GVA compilation for EUROSTAT, Prague: Czech
Statistical Office, 2009. <http://apl.czso.cz/pll/rocenka/rocenka.indexnu_reg>.
EUROPEAN COMMISSION. European System of Accounts ESA 1995. Luxemburg: EUROSTAT, 1996.
EUROSTAT. Regional Accounts Methods – Gross Value Added and Gross Fixed Capital Formation by Activity, Statistical
Manual. Luxemburg: EUROSTAT, 1995.
FISCHER, J., SIXTA, J. K propočtu souhrnné produktivity faktorů (To the calculation of total factor productivity), Politická
ekonomie, 2009, N. 4, pp. 544–554. ISSN 0032-3233.
HRONOVÁ, S., HINDLS, R., FISCHER, J., SIXTA, J. Národní účetnictví – Nástroj popisu globální ekonomiky (National
Accounting – tool for description of the global economy). Prague: C. H. Beck, 2009. ISBN 978-80-7400-153-6.
HRONOVÁ, S., HINDLS, R. Národní účetnictví – koncept a analýzy (National Accounting – concept and analysis). Prague:
C. H. Beck, 2000. ISBN 80-7179-235-7.
CHLAD, M. Regionální aspekty makroekonomických ukazatelů – faktory je ovlivňující. 1. část (Regional aspects of
macroeconomic indicators – influencing factors. Part 1). Statistika, 2008, N. 5, pp. 393–413. ISSN 0322-788X.
CHLAD, M. Regionální aspekty makroekonomických ukazatelů – agregáty regionálních účtů. 2. část (Regional aspects of
macroeconomic indicators – aggregate regional accounts. Part 2). Statistika, 2008, N. 6, pp. 483–502. ISSN 0322-788X.
CHLAD, M., KAHOUN, J. Factors Influencing the Rating of Regional Economic Performance or Reasons why Prague
has Become the 6th Best Economically Performing Region of the EU. Statistika, 2011, N. 2, pp. 4–23. ISSN 0322-788X.
JÍLEK, J. Regionální statistika a postupy jejího zavádění v ČR (Regional statistics and the procedures for its implementation
in the Czech Republic). Statistika, 2000, N. 1, pp. 20–35. ISSN 0322-788X.
KAHOUN, J. Metoda výpočtu regionálního HDP v České republice (The method of calculation of regional GDP in the
Czech Republic). Statistika, 2009, N. 6, pp. 518–530. ISSN 0322-788X.
KAHOUN, J. Regionální disparity v ČR – HDP versus disponibilní důchod (Regional disparities in the Czech Republic –
GDP versus disposable income). Ekonomické listy CES VŠEM, 2010, N. 3, pp. 17–28. ISSN 1804-4166.
KAHOUN, J. Regionální hrubý domácí produkt: důchodový a produkční přístup (Regional gross domestic product: Retirement
and production approach). CES VŠEM: Working paper, 2011, N. 3. ISSN 1801-2728.
KAHOUN, J. Ukazatele regionální konkurenceschopnosti v České republice (Indicators of regional competitiveness in the
Czech Republic). CES VŠEM: Working Paper, 2007, N. 5. ISSN 1801-2728.
KRAMULOVÁ, J., MUSIL, P. Experimentální odhad výdajové metody regionálního HDP v ČR (Experimental estimate of
the expenditure approach of regional GDP in the Czech Republic), Politická ekonomie, 2013, in print, N. 6/2013.
SIXTA, J. Development of Input-Output Tables in the Czech Republic. Statistika, 2013, N. 2, pp. 4–14. ISSN 0322-788X.
SIXTA, J. Odhady spotřeby fixního kapitálu (Estimates of consumption of fixed capital). Statistika, 2007, N. 2, pp. 156–163.
ISSN 0322-788X.
ŽENKA, J., ČADIL, V. Regional distribution of technology-intensive manufacturing industries in the Czech Republic with
an accent on risk of delocalisation. Prague Economic Papers, 2009, N. 1, pp. 61–77. ISSN 1210-0455.
36